2011/11/10 Yusuke Endoh <mame / tsg.ne.jp>:
> Hello,
>
> 2011/11/11 Luis Lavena <luislavena / gmail.com>:
>> These gems depends on 3rd party libraries (OpenSSL, libxml2) which,
>> under the environment I'm worried about (Windows) are not present by
>> default.
>>
>> This increases the burden on gem authors to compile binaries for every
>> new API version of Ruby.
>
> Sorry I cannot get your point yet.¡¡Gem developer already has both
> developement environment and knowledge for building his/har gems.
> So why does the burden increase in comparison to a simple gem?
>

Sorry for not making myself clear:

Lot of gem authors releases gems in "ruby" and native for Windows.
Those native for Windows package the multiple version of the
extensions.

Most of the time this is done using cross-compilation tools were the
extension is cross compiled against different versions of the cross
compiled Ruby and then packaged inside the gem.

Adding more versions of Ruby increases the burden of compilation and
testing across these versions for another platform.

You don't see that scenario because you're using an OS that do provide
these support libraries required to successfully compile a gem, but on
Windows those are lacking (or require manual installation
instructions).

By adding multiple versions of Ruby to the same gem, it will increase
the gem size, the time it takes to compile and the burden on
testing/verification between versions for gem developers.

Please apologize if my english isn't clear, I'm not a native english
speaker and trying to explain the issue the more graphical as
possible.

-- 
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupry